Many sports incorporate a handicapping system in their structure, in an attempt
to extend the range of abilities within which players can play each other reasonably
competitively. Handicapping is relatively easy in those sports where the play
is mainly non-interactive, as for example in stroke-play golf, where the player
is really competing against the course and can count the number of strokes
taken, or in most forms of racing where the time taken to cover a set distance
can be measured: in other, highly- interactive sports, such as tennis or squash,
where players play alternate strokes, handicapping is practically impossible.

The interaction in croquet occurs at the end of a turn. The out-player-has
the chance to make a roquet, play a few strokes and score a few points until
his turn ends. The use of bisques, which prolongs the innings reduces the interaction
and, in general, the more bisques available, the lower the interaction. This
may be a reason wHy full-bisque play has never been popular, in
spite of the enthusiastic attempts of some players to promote it. Also, the
higher the standard of play, the less the interaction becomes, which is a cause
of concern at the very highest level. We are fortunate that croquet is an interactive
sport where handicapping works reasonably well but it will always be subject
to fundamental limitations. Consistency will also have a part to play; good
players are usually consistent (one of the reasons why they are good players),
weak players much less so. When there is a wide ability gap between the players,
the result of the game will depend largely on the consistency of the weaker
player. If he plays a bisque or two better than his handicap, he will win;
if he plays a bisque or two worse, he will lose. There is very little the better
player can do about it. In general, handicapping will work best in croquet
when there is only a small difference in ability and will become increasingly
less effective as the ability gap increases.

In theory full-bisque croquet, particularly off base zero, is much easier
to handicap and likely to be more accurate, because of the reduced interaction
between the players. The game can be reduced to little more than two four-ball
breaks for each player, i.e. the game becomes more of a contest between each
player and the court, as in golf, rather than player against player. If a full-bisque
game is played off a base other than zero, some of the interaction between
the players is restored but it will always be less than in a game played with
bisque difference.

The Handicap Co-ordination Committee (HCC) has no role to play in promoting
particular forms of the game simply because they are easier to handicap. Instead,
it has to respond to what players want to play and to provide a handicapping
system which caters for all forms of play. As I shall show below, that is possible.

It is often said that a game of croquet is a race between the players to peg
out even though play is not simultaneous. In other sports where the first to
the line is the winner, the aim of handicapping is to give the slower person
a start which is sufficient to get him to the line at or about the same time
as a quicker person. The same is true of croquet: the effect of bisques is
to give a weaker player a start so that he has a reasonable chance of getting
to the peg-out before his opponent.

This can be recognised easily if the weaker player uses all his bisques at
the start of the game. His clips advance to the point where his bisques run
out. From there onwards he has to complete the game with his own ability. Exactly
the same effect would be obtained by starting the weaker player the same number
of hoops ahead but the use of bisques (which may be used at any time) to give
a notional start adds a richness of tactics to handicapping that is not present
in other sports.

Note that bisques do not transform a poorer player into a better one, just
as a start in a running race does not magically change a slow runner into a
faster one. A high handicap player is not changed into an A class player by
using bisques; he remains a high handicap player who can plan his play with
bisques according to his ability.

It is clear that if handicapping is to have a sensible structure and is to
be independent of the whims of individual handicappers then it must have a
sound basis. That basis is provided by the concept of the scratch player who,
given a reasonable opportunity - say an easy pick-up of a four-ball break -
should be capable of taking that break to the peg. In other words, a scratch
player should be capable of taking two four-ball breaks to the peg and pegging
out given the right opportunity, although for tactical reasons he may decide
not to do so. To be fair to all other players, who may be called upon to play
a scratch player in a handicap game, they should likewise be capable of taking
two four- ball breaks to the peg and pegging out with their full allocation
of bisques. That is not to say that they will do so on every occasion, for
croquet is not a sport in which chance plays no part; rather, there should
be an even chance of doing so.

In practice, a break has to be set up in actual play, either by good play
on the part of the better player or with the use of bisques by the weaker player.
If a player receiving bisques uses some to set up a break, he will not have
enough left on average to take both balls to the peg, even playing full-bisque.
This still gives scope for scratch and minus players to play handicap games.

The idea that a player's handicap is related to his average performance is
fundamental. A player's handicap is an average of the number of bisques he
requires to take two four-ball breaks to the peg and peg out. On average a
bisque will be worth M = 26/H points, where H is the player's handicap. This
concept of the average number of points per bisques, M, is useful in demonstrating
that handicapping works under a wide range of systems. Because it is an average,
it does not matter that M is not usually an integer.

A player's ability is directly proportional to M and, of course, inversely
proportional to his handicap, H. If two players X and Y have handicaps Hx and
Hy resp. with Hy > Hx, giving Mx and
My, then their abilities will be in the ratio Mx/My =
Hy/Hx.

For example, if Hx = 6 and Hy = 12, then Mx/My =
Hy/Hx = 2,

i.e. X is twice as good a player as Y because on average he scores twice as
many points per bisque, which in effect means twice as many points per turn.

Let us consider as a general case a full-bisque handicap game played off base
B by X and Y.

Each player receives a number of bisques equal to the difference between his
handicap and the base, B.

The number of points which X must score without bisques,
Nx is given by

Nx = 26 - 26(Hx - B)/Hx = 26B/Hx.

Similarly, the number of points which Y must score without bisques, Ny,
is

Ny = 26 - 26(Hy - B)/Hy = 26B/Hy.

The ratio Nx/Ny = Hy/Hx = Mx/My

In other words, the ratio of the number of points that the players must score
without bisques to win the game is in direct proportion to their abilities,
That is fundamental to the fairness of a handicapping system.

Note that the result derived for the general case above is quite independent
of the base chosen.

There are two special cases that arise from the general case:

(a) B = 0; This is the normal full-bisque game off zero base;
(b) B = Hx; This is equivalent to a bisque difference game;

If B > Hx, then the players play bisque difference, i.e. with
the base changed to the handicap Hx.

Therefore, bisque difference and full-bisque are only special cases of the
general case of full-bisque off a modified base and lead to the same result.
This is no coincidence: its validity is verified by the fact that a single
handicapping scale has been used successfully for many years for all forms
of play. The above analysis shows that handicap play is fundamentally fair,
no matter what form is played. It also shows that even if the scale of handicapping
were to slip over a period of time, the system would still be fair, as this
would be equivalent to a change in the base handicap, B. There is, of course,
an underlying assumption that a player's ability without bisques is directly
related to his ability with them. In general, this is a fair assumption, and
particularly so for small handicap differences, but it will start to break
down when the handicap difference is too large. In this case a weak player
who loses the innings when all his bisques have been used may not be able to
hit in and score further points. There is also an assumption that the number
of bisques given is in accordance with Law 38 and Appendix 3 [now Law
37 and Appendix 3]. Any change in the
number given or restrictions in their use will affect the fairness of the game.

Although mathematical analysis is useful, we should always remember that croquet
is a game played with mallets, hoops and balls on a court measuring 35 yards
by 28 yards and not by mathematicians with pencils on a piece of paper. There
are other skills which come into play as well as the ability to play breaks,
such as the ability to hit in and pick up breaks, etc... Nevertheless, there
are great advantages in using the above concepts in handicapping even given
the limitations and they should not be lightly discarded. The use of average
performance to set handicaps leads naturally to an automatic handicapping system.
It also makes it possible to devise an objective test to set initial handicaps.
These advantages amply compensate for any minor discrepancies between theory
and practice. As handicapping is most important in competitive games, then
the conditions should be the standard conditions for handicap tournaments,
i.e. firmly set hoops with 1/8 inch gap between hoop and ball (if the conditions
are particularly easy, e.g. slow lawns with good turf, then the gap should
be reduced to 3/32 inch). Hoop setting is probably the greatest cause of regional
differences in handicap. If the hoops are too wide and too sloppy, the game
is made easier and handicaps will be too low. Likewise, it is quite unfair
in handicap play, particularly to high-bisquers, to set hoops to President's
Cup standard or even tighter.

The AHS is a means of regulating the handicaps of those players who play a
reasonable number of competitive games. It is objective, and in its purest
form works simply on the number of wins and losses in handicap games only.
Each player has an index, related to his handicap, which is increased by 10
for each win and is decreased by 10 for each loss. The system is extended to
take account of level play games between players with different handicaps in
a way that is related to the Computer Grading System.

Trigger points for handicap changes are set at 50 point intervals for all
but minus handicaps. This happens to be convenient and easy to remember, but
there is a more important reason for its adoption. We have to set a balance
between making the system sufficiently responsive to genuine changes in players'
abilities and yet not so responsive that random effects cause an excessive
number of spurious changes of handicap. The random effects arise because, even
if players are properly matched by handicap, there is a winner of every game.
Any individual may win 50% of his games over a period of time, thus indicating
that his handicap is correct, but within that period of time may accumulate
the five net wins or losses which would trigger a spurious handicap change.
This is a problem well known to scientists (the one-dimensional random walk).
Theory predicts that there is a 50% chance of a spurious change occurring after
nineteen games between properly matched players: if the trigger points are
set at 30 point intervals, this number is reduced to seven. Spurious changes
are reduced to some extent by the restriction that changes can only take place
at the end of a tournament or event rather than take immediate effect.

The CGS algorithm has a strong theoretical foundation and is similar to that
used in chess by the Elo rating system. Each player has an index, 1, which
is changed after every game according to the pre-game probability, P(r), that
the actual result would occur. The probability, P(r), is related to the difference
in index of the two players.

The change in index for each player after a game is given by:

Delta I = K {1 - P(r)},

where K is a weighting factor which depends upon the importance of the event.
K is set to 60 for major events, 50 for normal events and 40 for minor events.

The factor {I - P(r)}I is given by:

{1 - P(r)} = 1/{1 + 10 (Iw-I1)/500 }

where Iw and I1, are the indices of the winner and
loser respectively immediately before the game.

Therefore, Delta I = K/{1+ 10 (Iw - I1)/500}

Delta I is added to the winner's index and subtracted from the loser's index.

With the values of K indicated above, the index, I, can be quite volatile;
therefore, ranking lists are usually produced by means of a grade, G, which
is a dampened version of I and is calculated as follows:

Gn = (1-Y)Gn-1+ YIn

Note, however, that the damping is quite arbitrary and has no theoretical
validity. Currently Y is set to 0.1.

Ranking lists are a harmless and occasionally useful product of the CGS but
they should not be taken over-seriously. An index difference of 20 is required
to give odds of 11 to 10 in favour of the better player and it is unlikely
that grades are any more significant. Ranking lists are only used by selectors
to give a window of opportunity to players, who are then seriously considered
for selection.

It is clear that the inclusion of level play games in the AHS is necessary
in view of the fact that many players, particularly improving ones, play both
forms. In order to include these games in the AHS it was necessary to devise
a mechanism which related the change of index for players to the probability
of the result occurring. Although this probability can be obtained from the
CGS, the CGS function is far too complicated for players to use directly. However,
comparison of CGS grades and CA handicaps revealed a reasonable correlation
in the range where data were available. This was used to construct a simplified
table, which is based upon handicap step difference rather than handicap index
difference, to obtain the increment to be added to or subtracted from a player's
AHS index.

Handicap step difference rather than index difference was chosen initially
as the basis for index increments for two reasons: (a) it is simpler to use,
and (b) it avoids the need to calculate a new index immediately after each
game. The latter reason was particularly important as it was believed that
many players would forget their cards and could not be expected to remember
their index, although most can usually remember their current handicap.

The K values used in the CGS leads to indices and handicaps in the AHS which
are far too volatile, given the simplicity of the present trigger points for
handicap changes, and therefore a lower value of 20 was chosen. This value
is consistent with an index change of 10 for handicap games.

The agreement of the CGS (with a K value of 20) and the AHS increments can
be seen in the following table, where one handicap step difference is equivalent
to an index difference of 50 for both the CGS and the AHS. However, the maximum
odds that can be incorporated in the AHS without resorting to decimals in the
index change are 19:1

Table 1 Comparison of CGS and AHS Index Increments

Handicap Steps
Difference

CGS Index
Change

AHS Index
Change

-6

4.02

4

-5

4.81

5

-4

5.69

6

-3

6.68

7

-2

7.74

8

-1

8.95

9

0

10

10

1

11.15

11

2

12.26

12

3

13.32

13

4

14.31

14

5

15.19

15

6

15.98

16

In the first trials of the AHS with the inclusion of level play, those games
which involved a player with a minus handicap were excluded. However, that
proved to be highly unpopular as it was believed that the minus players were
being protected. The reverse was actually the case, for the correlation between
handicap and CGS grade becomes extremely non-linear for minus players, and
anyone playing such a player in the system would have been at a distinct disadvantage.
This problem was solved with the introduction of notional steps for minus players,
which correspond with the increased gap between the trigger points at this
level.

As was pointed out in section 4, the handicapping
system is only valid for the normal forms of handicap play with normal use
of bisques. Advanced handicap play may upset the balance of probabilities between
the players, with the advantage going to the better player. From the handicapping
point of view, it would have been better to have retained the normal definition
of a bisque as an extra turn rather than the continuation of the previous turn.
However, we have to deal with the situation as it is. For the time being, advanced
handicap games will count as qualifying games for the AHS.

The introduction of the AHS was viewed with suspicion, not to say hostility,
by many players and in particular by some handicappers. Yet, after a few years,
most players accept that it has been an important step forwards. The old system
where handicaps were adjusted by individual handicappers may have worked when
the number of players was comparatively small and most players and handicappers
knew each other. With the spread of the game differing standards became apparent.
Moreover, the old system was not based on average performance but more on an
historic-best basis. Once a player was established on the tournament circuit,
his handicap would only be reduced when he played above his normal ability
in a tournament. Winners of tournaments came to expect a handicap reduction,
and were usually satisfied by handicappers, but those who lost badly rarely
had a handicap increase. The whole system had a built-in downwards drift which
had to be counteracted at ever-decreasing time intervals by the HCC. Such intervention
was always unpopular.

The AHS, based as it is on average performance, in theory overcomes the disadvantages
of the old system but it is not perfect. If it were, there would be little
need to have handicappers. Because of the random accumulation of wins and losses,
a player who has achieved a fairly consistent level of performance will still
experience some fluctuation in his handicap. Someone with handicap 8, for example,
will play most of the time off that handicap but will from time to time move
up to 9 or down to 7. A handicap, therefore, is not defined more precisely
than +/- one step, and there is no point in handicappers making adjustments
of this magnitude.

The AHS also requires players in the system to play many games (at least ten)
and against different opponents. The more games a player plays, the better
his chance of finding his level in the system. The system works best, therefore,
for players who do play regularly and competitively. It is no use at all in
standardising handicaps for closed communities of players with no contact outside
their immediate circle, although it will still provide comparative handicaps
for them. It cannot cope with rapidly improving players and was never intended
to: separate arrangements outside the AHS are made for these players.

The great majority of players who do not play many competitive games have
fairly high handicaps. Most beginners improve fairly quickly once they have
got to grips with the game, but few come within the category of rapid improvers
(those who come down to a low single-figure handicap within a season). For
these reasons handicappers are given complete freedom of action to adjust handicaps
above 12, although naturally they are expected to keep such handicaps in line
with those of players who are playing sufficient games within the AHS. The
AHS also works in intervals of two bisques above handicap 12. This reflects
the fact that most high-bisquers are inconsistent in their play, and it also
makes it easier for genuinely improving players in the system to reduce their
handicaps to a suitable level.

The AHS is a purely domestic system and applies only within the domain of
the CA and to members of the CA regardless of nationality. Whilst it would
be nice if handicapping were uniform throughout the world of croquet, that
clearly is not the case. Overseas games and games where one of the players
is not a CA member are specifically excluded.

Many suggestions have been made to improve the system, usually to cater for
a small number of players who do not fit easily within its confines. However,
such improvements must always be viewed in the light of their effect on the
system as a whole, not just upon that small number of players. For example,
it is impossible to improve the lot of steadily improving players within the
AHS by reducing the gap between trigger points without affecting the stability
of the whole system. Some have suggested that close games should be discounted
on the grounds that they could have gone either way and should be counted as
a draw. The whole point of handicapping is to produce close results, and to
remove these games would lead to a less satisfactory system. The AHS is game-hungry
and the more games included, the better the system works. Taking out close
results would also affect the neutrality of the system when there is a wide
handicap difference. A scratch player can hardly ever win by more than a few
points because of his opponent's bisques but can easily be beaten by 26.

Given the standard set by the scratch player, namely his ability to take a
break to the peg without the use of bisques, it is possible to devise an objective
test to set the handicap of any other player. In practice, the situation is
rather more complicated than just counting the number of bisques a player requires
to make two all-round, laid, four- ball breaks. A player's handicap is usually
determined by a number of factors: his ability to play a four-ball break; his
ability to set up a break with bisques; his ability to build a break without
bisques; his ability to play carefully when conceding bisques.

Fortunately, most players who require an initial handicap are beginners and
consequently high-bisquers. In these circumstances, the last two of the above
factors are largely irrelevant and it is only the first two which need to be
tested.

The test for a new player (and good practice for him anyway) is to start with
two balls about three yards apart on the east boundary in the vicinity of hoop
4. The adversary balls are in a tice position on the west boundary and in the
second comer. This is a common enough position at the start of a game when
the opponent has missed the shot at his own tice at the start of the game.
The player must then set up a four-ball break with bisques and take the break
to the peg, finishing with a tidy leave. The total number of bisques required
should be noted and the exercise repeated a number of times. The player can
be left to do this for himself over a suitable period of time and then report
the results to the club handicapper. Each attempt must be continued to the
peg, even if disaster strikes along the way. It is probably better for the
handicapper to discount the first couple of attempts to take account of the
unfamiliarity of the exercise. The remaining attempts should be averaged and
one bisque subtracted from the average. The result should then be doubled and
rounded off to the nearer integer. The averaging process is most important
and the handicapper should stress this to the player under test, In theory,
the resulting handicap is a couple of bisques too high but it makes some allowance
for the difference between practice and competitive play, and the natural tendency
to discount disastrous attempts.

Note that the hoops should be set to normal tournament standards for the club,
as it is the tournament players who will set the benchmarks by which other
players will be judged. If the hoops are too wide and slack, poor play will
not be penalised and the resulting handicap will be too low. If the player
later goes on to play in tournaments off a handicap which is too low, he could
be disheartened by losing most of his games.

It is quite common for beginners to improve rapidly, particularly if they
are prepared to practise. They should be encouraged to incorporate the above
exercise into their normal practice routine and to keep a record for the benefit
of their club handicapper, particularly if they intend or are requested to
play in league fixtures or handicap tournaments such as the All-England, in
fairness to their opponents.

Note also that the above test does not apply to established players. It is
far easier to learn how to do the test than it is to cope with conceding bisques
or to build breaks without them.

Handicappers should allow the AHS to work with as little interference as possible
and in particular should refrain from making minor adjustments to handicaps.
Please remember that the system is no more accurate than +/- one step and therefore
adjustments of this magnitude should not be made. Where action outside the
AHS is required, adjustments may be made as follows:

There is no restriction on setting a handicap above 12. You may also make
use of odd- numbered handicaps if you so wish. The player's index should be
reset to the appropriate value. Report the change of handicap on the normal
report form.

Changes outside the AHS must be by at least three steps and based on the
evidence of two tournaments or ten games. An index change of at least 80 points
is required over the period considered for the Rapid Improver procedure to
be used. Rapid Improvers will usually be in their first or second season of
serious play. Report the change on the Rapid Improver report form.

Example.
A player enters a tournament at handicap 11, having won four of his last five
games at that handicap. He now wins all five games without loss and with
some ease, leading to an automatic handicap change to 10. Over those ten
games his index has changed by 80 points and you may judge that a handicap
change to 8 (or lower), i.e. at least three lower than the handicap at which
he started the period under consideration, would be more appropriate.

The majority of handicap changes will be reported through the tournament report
system. Players are asked to notify automatic changes of handicap to the Tournament
Manager or Handicapper, who should initial their cards and send a report of
such changes to the CA Office at the end of the tournament. If the player's
card has already been initialled, you should take no further action. Please
do not initial anyone's card unless you intend to notify the CA Office of the
change yourself or through your club.

Please use the current issue of the appropriate forms. Use block capitals
and enter the names in the style used by the CA, i.e. surname followed by title
(Mr. may be omitted) and all initials, in order to help the CA Office. Players
have been asked to record their names on their records cards in this style;
if you see any entered otherwise, please ask the player to correct it.

The AHS will usually cope with players who play at least ten competitive games
per season. Please note that friendly games are specifically excluded from
the AHS and players may not take them into account for automatic handicap changes.
You may wish to consider them for non-automatic changes, but please bear in
mind that friendly games are often played with sloppy hoops and with a lack
of competition nerves. In general, you should aim to keep players' handicaps
in line with those set by players who have handicaps set by the AHS.

CA handicaps in this range may be altered or set by a club handicapper, including
the use of odd-numbered handicaps between 12 and 24. The player's record card
should be initialled and the change reported to the CA Office. Please do not
report any changes for players who are not CA Associates.

CA handicaps in this range may not be altered by a club handicapper. However,
the club handicapper may make a recommendation to the HCC but it will not take
effect until confirmed by the HCC. In general, the player's handicap should
be substantially out of line (at least three steps) with CA standards. Minor
discrepancies will be taken care of by the AHS. Recommendations should be accompanied
be the player's record card (or a copy). If you otherwise alter a player's
club handicap in this range, it should be made clear to the player that it
is not a change to a CA handicap.

The AHS operates nationally for all CA Associates (except overseas Associates)
within the domain of the CA. The Scottish Croquet Association uses a system
which differs only marginally from the AHS and games played in Scotland may
also be used. Overseas countries, including Ireland, do not have an automatic
system and games played in these countries are not applicable. Handicap changes
made by handicappers overseas are not valid within the domain of the CA.

All singles games in CA Calendar Fixtures, Federation Leagues, inter-club
contests, and designated club competitions qualify for the system. Club handicappers
should provide a list of designated club competitions at the start of the season.
All qualifying games should be played with hoops set to CA tournament standards.

Short croquet, golf croquet, friendly or ad hoc games, walkovers and abandoned
games are specifically excluded from the system.

Each competitive handicap singles game played to normal handicap laws, whether
bisque difference or full-bisque, that you win will increase your index by
10: each game that you lose will decrease your index by 10.

This includes ordinary and advanced singles play. The index change for both
players is calculated from Table 4. NB This table is
not based upon simple handicap difference; rather, it is based upon the number
of steps difference in handicap between the two players. A step is one bisque
from handicap 5 upwards and a half-bisque between 0 and 5; below 0 see Table
5.

All players carry forward their index from the end of the previous season
to the start of the next season. Players new to the system should be given
an index equal to the trigger point for their handicap.

The CA provides all players with record cards to help them keep track of their
handicaps and indices. To help handicappers and tournament officials to complete
handicap return forms, please enter your name in the style used by the CA,
i.e. surname followed by title (Mr. may be omitted) and all initials.

You are responsible for recording your own results, calculating your own index
and determining any handicap changes. If you fail to do so and play off an
incorrect handicap you may be disqualified from a tournament. It will not be
necessary to hand in your card at the start of each tournament, but tournament
officials may ask to see it.

At a CA calendar tournament a handicap change can only be triggered at the
end of the event. Then, if your handicap is on or past a trigger point for
a handicap change (see Table 2), you must notify the
tournament handicapper or manager of your change of handicap before you leave
the tournament, so that it can be notified to the CA as soon as possible. The
official will initial your card on the front cover to acknowledge the change,
but the responsibility for correct recording and calculation still lies with
you.

In club and federation matches, one-day events and rounds of extended tournaments,
changes of index and handicap will normally be calculated at the end of the
day. As a matter of courtesy you should always tell your club handicapper of
any handicap change, whether at a CA tournament or not. If you are a CA Associate
and do not intend to play in any later CA calendar fixture, you should ask
your club handicapper to notify the change to the CA.

If your handicap has changed between CA calendar fixtures, you should inform
the tournament manager or handicapper at the start of the tournament and have
your card initialled.

Rapid improvers are players whose skills are improving more rapidly in relation
to the number of competitive games that they play, so that their handicaps
become substantially out of line with their ability. Such players will usually
be in their first or second season of serious play and procedures exist to
deal with their cases.

Short croquet has a separate handicapping system, which is related to the
normal system in Table 6. Note that the correspondence
is one way only, i.e. the table may be used to derive a short croquet handicap
from a normal handicap but not vice-versa. A Croquet Association handicap must
never be adjusted or set on the basis of short croquet.

For those who play regularly and competitively a separate and simplified automatic
handicapping system has been introduced. All the games are 14-point, full-bisque.
The winner's index increases by one; the loser's index decreases by one. See Table
7.

This and similar terms are widely used to describe players whose handicaps
are thought to be too high. Used in a jocular sense there is probably no harm
but its use to make a player feel uncomfortable is deplorable. There have always
been players who take up the game enthusiastically and are prepared to practise
frequently and thoroughly. No handicapping system, whether automatic or not,
has been able to cope with these players but they soon reach their potential
level of ability. Such players should be encouraged rather than made to feel
pariahs. There is little financial reward in croquet and instances of deliberate
farming of handicaps are rare.

Otherwise, when problems do arise, they are usually in Federation and local
leagues with players who do not play many competitive games. In fairness to
other teams and players, club handicappers have a great responsibility to see
that their own team players are correctly handicapped.

Some minus players complain that there is little opportunity to decrease their
handicaps still further, particularly if they are at -2. Few play many handicap
games but, in any case, against a conceptual scratch player it is not possible
to concede more than two bisques and still have a 50% chance of winning. Nevertheless,
minus players do have a useful function in the AHS: they serve as an anchor
to the system and help to prevent any downwards drift in handicaps.